Sunday, February 22, 2015

Adaptation Studies and Active Literacy

Despite having written and published extensively in the field of adaptation studies and pedagogy (including two co-edited volumes THE PEDAGOGY OF ADAPTATION and REDEFINING ADAPTATION STUDIES (2010), as well as ADAPTATION STUDIES AND LEARNING (2013)), I have hitherto found it difficult to address the question posed by Thomas Leitch in his FILM ADAPTATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, about how to use adaptation studies to promote “active literacy.”

For Barton Palmer, writing in Film Quarterly, this model represents a form of “Deweyesque engagement in
rewriting” – which I take to mean a form of education designed to promote
individual talents, as well as an ability to use such talents for the greater
good. Adaptation enables learners to
experience and interact with the curriculum, as well as experiment for
themselves in writing and learning.

In general terms, this is a laudable aim; but I have
always wondered how this “active literacy” could be assessed. In ADAPTATION STUDIES AND LEARNING, Tony Gurr
and myself suggested that this should be done collaboratively, with learners
and teachers participating in a give-and-take process of evaluation, eventually
arriving at some consensus of opinion.
This might sound laudable in theory, but might be difficult to achieve
in practice, especially when educators are faced with large classes at the
undergraduate level.

After having read Stephen Apkon’s inspiring book THE
AGE OF THE IMAGE: REDEFINING LITERACY IN A WORLD OF SCREENS (Farrar, Strous
& Giroux, 2013), perhaps I am now in a better position to understand how “active
literacy” might be encouraged in the classroom.
Apkon argues persuasively that, in a world that is awash in visual
storytelling, we have to redefine our pedagogical approaches to take into
account how storytelling works in the human brain, and on the practical value
of literacy in real-world situations.

Rather than confining ourselves to written
assignments, we should encourage learners to research, write, revise, edit and
produce videos, using archival material as well as their own ideas. This form of assignment teaches learners “not
only how to read and write, but also how to listen and speak, in all the media
that really matter” (212). We do not
need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak (by rejecting
written assignments altogether), but we need to redefine our educational
methods through the prism of visual communication.

Modes of assessment should encompass familiar criteria
– problem-solving and group participation – but also assess performative potential: visually-oriented
projects can inspire a form of creative expression that some learners have
never previously discovered. Giving them
the chance to show off their work in public, as well as perform in front of the
camera, can inspire the kind of self-confidence that simply does not exist with
exclusively written activities.

Perhaps more significantly, Apkon argues that visually-oriented
activities help to establish relations between learners across social and
cultural boundaries. The realities of
problem-solving, planning and communication (all part of the experience of
filmmaking) provides a catalyst for the development of critical life-skills and
“the kind of social and emotional learning our schools do not provide” (217).

Apkon offers a five-point plan for measuring visual
literacy. He believes that, when they
graduate at the secondary and/or the tertiary levels, all learners should be
able to:-

·Write a script
for a short video segment;

·Shoot a coherent
piece of film narrative with the correct literate elements of expression;

·Edit video out
of raw material into a persuasive argument;

·Access channels
of distribution, including the Internet;

·Critically
understand and deconstruct visual media.

Such objectives mesh in with the objectives of
twenty-first century learning, as defined by the National Council of Teachers
of English in 2008: learners need to a) develop proficiency with the tools of
technology; b) Build relationships with others to solve problems
cross-culturally and collaboratively; c) Analyze and evaluate multiple streams
of information; d) Evaluate multimedia texts; and e) Design and share
information for global communities for a variety of purposes.

In this educational model, “adaptation studies” not
only requires learners to rewrite source-texts, but they have to learn how to
adapt to one another. Likewise educators
have to redefine their roles; they are no longer sources of knowledge but
participants in the collaborative process, guiding learners as well as offering
encouragement in their own processes of self-discovery.

“Active literacy” as defined by Leitch and
filtered through Akpon’s suggestions, emphasizes the importance of activity;
everyone has to be involved in the process of creation, in the belief that
their work is not just designed to pass exams (or obtain good grades), but
represents a positive contribution towards cross-cultural understanding. The Internet and/or social media provide an invaluable
means to facilitate this process.
Adaptation studies not only involve a process of personal development
but should foster the desire to share one’s insights and/or cultural
products with others. As the old saying
goes, two heads are better than one.